Share this story

Gwyneth Paltrow’s contextual commerce company Goop is still making more than a dozen false and misleading health claims about the medical products and nutritional supplements it sells, according to a complaint letter from the nonprofit advertising watchdog Truth in Advertising, Inc.

The bogus health claims are not just potential hazards to consumers, they are direct violations of a court order that bars Goop from making such false and misleading claims, the watchdog alleges.

Further Reading

That court order was part of a legal settlement Goop entered in September 2018 to resolve a lawsuit brought by 10 California District Attorney offices. The state prosecutors alleged that Paltrow’s “wellness empire” was making several unsubstantiated medical claims about their products. Specifically, the prosecutors noted that Goop claimed without evidence that its infamous vaginal Jade Egg “could balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse, and increase bladder control” and that a blend of essential oils (for oral consumption or for adding to bathwater) could help prevent depression.

Goop settled the claims, admitting no wrongdoing. It agreed to pay $145,000 in civil penalties, offer refunds to customers who bought the offending products, and agreed to an order barring it from making and/or disseminating false or misleading statements about any medical devices or nutritional supplements. More specifically, Goop is prohibited from representing—expressly or by implication—that said products can diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure or prevent any disease, unless the representation is non-misleading and has approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Further Reading

At the time, Goop said the misleading advertising was merely an “honest disagreement” about the laws governing health claims. California regulators “assisted us in applying those laws to the content we published, and we appreciate their guidance in this matter as we move from a pioneer in this space to an established wellness authority,” Erica Moore, Goop's chief financial officer, said in a statement.

But, according to Truth in Advertising, aka TINA.org, that guidance didn’t stick.

Claims

“Goop seems to have forgotten that it is legally bound by a court order to refrain from engaging in deceptive marketing or, worse, is knowingly violating the order,” Bonnie Patten, TINA.org’s Executive Director, said in a statement. “It is outrageous that Goop continues to exploit health issues in order to make money.”

In its new complaint letter to District Attorneys in California, TINA.org alleges that in more than a dozen instances, Goop “deceptively markets products as able to treat and/or mitigate the symptoms of several medical conditions, including anxiety, depression, OCD, hormone imbalances, and hair loss, as well as address the symptoms of excessive alcohol consumption.”

Further Reading

For instance, Goop’s website includes claims that ingredients in two perfumes and two candles it sells can treat anxiety, depression, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Goop claims an herbal supplement can treat anxiety, and it still suggests in a product insert that the Jade Egg can treat hormonal imbalance.

Also of note, TINA.org reports that Goop suggests an $88 bottle of vitamins can treat conditions related to menopause and perimenopause, including hair loss and hormonal imbalance.

It’s also worth pointing out that the vitamins contain a potentially dangerous amount of biotin—8,333% of the daily recommended amount. The FDA noted in a past safety communication that such high levels of biotin can interfere with clinical lab tests, such as those used to diagnose heart attacks. In fact, the FDA noted that it “has received a report that one patient taking high levels of biotin died following falsely low troponin test results [a biomarker for heart attacks] when a troponin test known to have biotin interference was used.”

209 Reader Comments

Corporations are people too! With those rights should come the attendant responsibilities and liabilities. Corporate decisions aren't made by faceless AI, but by individuals and THOSE individuals should be held civilly and/or criminally liable for the decisions they make. Forget settling with the company, go after those profiting from their choices. Lets see how fast Goop would shutter if the state AG demanded fines equal to every dollar in sales of products with dubious claims DIRECTLY from Paltrow![/quote]

Just remember, crimes committed by people against people are bad, baaaaaad.Crimes committed by corporations against people are...standard operating procedure in America.

Corporations are people too! With those rights should come the attendant responsibilities and liabilities. Corporate decisions aren't made by faceless AI, but by individuals and THOSE individuals should be held civilly and/or criminally liable for the decisions they make. Forget settling with the company, go after those profiting from their choices. Lets see how fast Goop would shutter if the state AG demanded fines equal to every dollar in sales of products with dubious claims DIRECTLY from Paltrow!

Just remember, crimes committed by people against people are bad, baaaaaad.Crimes committed by corporations against people are...standard operating procedure in America.

While I think it should be easier, in general, to pierce the corporate veil and attach personal liability to directors and officers of corporations, I'd encourage you to do a bit of reading and understand why limited liability is a thing to begin with before you declare that it should be eliminated entirely.

You people who would buy the Goop Skincare product brand (Goop's own brand) thinking you will get this great skin care product... don't do it. There is a reason the exact amount of each ingredient is not provided, they're 'fairy dusted'.

note: 'Fairy dusting' (AKA 'angel dusting' and sometimes 'window dressing'), happens when an 'active' ingredient is added to a product so its presence can be used in marketing claims but the ingredient is intentionally added at levels too low to have the efficacy for the claimed (or implied) benefits of the product.

What is always annoying about these settlements is the the company almost always admits no wrongdoing but settles for a payout. Pretty good scam, if you can do it.

Imaging if Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer admitted no wrongdoing, but still were sentenced.

This sort of thing allows corporations to delude consumers and themselves that they did nothing wrong, and it was just pesky regulators and conned consumers doing a shakedown on the poor, innocent corporation.

That already happens, but if you are convicted, spouting bullshit at the judge and jury may cause them not lessen your sentence (unlikely but possible). Its ususally referred to as throwing yourself on the mercy of the court.

I mean, we can only blame Goop so much. After all, who are these people buying into this crap?

Think about it. It's all people, but it particularly preys in the uneducated and emotionally vulnerable. Thinking about the victims of this scam makes it worse, not better.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Their target, considering pricing, is relatively wealthy. I doubt uneducated is their demographic.

Hard disagree. While some clothing is high. Cosmetics similar to Avon, with a lot on sale in the $10-20 range. I also question your assumption that a woman's disposable income comes from education for her target audience.

Emotionally vulnerable is the main issue though. Almost all of the ads & copy are subtle or overtly predatory in nature. "You are insecure and you are broken, our products will fix you."

What do you think is going on? Just your average pt barnum scam - sucka born every minute?

Fwiw that has a lable... Victim Blaming. Maybe it fits, but I'd rather live in a society where this sales behavior isn't socially acceptable. There is a documentary, selling avon in the amazon and books on Victoria Secret marketing - that i got my assumptions and talking points from. The latter really details the thought process on how you sell luxury to the poors. I could be misplaced, but given the amount of money she's supposedly making - I don't think she's exclusively selling to the 2%. You have to shift a lot of $1k hand bags to get to 250 million.

Clothing and cosmetics? Unless she is claiming her foundation cures rosacea or her eyeliner protects against conjunctivitis, I am not sure these are the products at issue.

I guess you are free to take issue with whatever you like. Disposable income isn’t a target demographic. Statistically speaking, people with a higher education earn more money. People with a lower education are more likely to experience unemployment. That does not mean there aren’t wealthy uneducated people. You target statistically relevant groups though.

To be accurate that article was not by a NY Times Author but a "Letter to the Editor" by Jennifer Block. An for those who didn't have time to read the article a quick summary is essentially, "People hate Gweneth because she is a woman, not because of bad science." Is basically the summary of her submission.

Not sure what a corporate "death penalty" would accomplish. To quote just about every zombie horror movie ever, "How do you kill something that isn't alive?" It's trivial to set up a new corporation, and brand association would be based on Paltrow, not "Goop." She's the brand, regardless of the name. Without punishing her (and other corporate bad actors) directly, shutting down a corporation seems relatively pointless to me. Besides, I don't think anyone would particularly care if Goop ended up being run by someone who didn't make false medical claims. It's the deception that's the problem, not selling useless junk with a massive markup, per se.

Isn’t using “Goop” and “Health” in the same paragraph with an implication of positive correlation, much less the same sentence considered false advertising—unless it has been contextually modified to something like “health of Paltrow’s bank account?

I wonder whether Paltrow and her execs believe this dangerous drivel, or whether it’s a scam to take advantage of women with more money than sense.

Damned if do or don’t on giving it the corporate “death” penalty. If it doesn’t die by anything other than cash starvation (which is unlikely given how rich Paltrow is), they can easily do the “big pharma and closed mindedness is oppressing us!” card that will just cause them to become more narrow minded. If allowed to live, Goop continues to peddle it’s snake oil that can cause real harm to it’s customers.

The company existing at all is a testament to how terrible science education and literacy is in this country...

“Goop seems to have forgotten that it is legally bound by a court order to refrain from engaging in deceptive marketing or, worse, is knowingly violating the order ... It is outrageous that Goop continues to exploit health issues in order to make money.”

Con man don't stop until you force them to. Apparently a court order is insufficient. A much harsher remedy is called for.

All I can think of is that Martha Stewart went to jail for less than this.

To be accurate that article was not by a NY Times Author but a "Letter to the Editor" by Jennifer Block. An for those who didn't have time to read the article a quick summary is essentially, "People hate Gweneth because she is a woman, not because of bad science." Is basically the summary of her submission.

Yeah to be fair it's not by anyone in the Times editorial board (which also has some real turds). I think I used the term op-ed correctly, which confusingly can be either someone who works for the Times or someone from outside.

Agreed on your summation. It especially pissed me off that they focused on the parts about female sexuality, as if that is what the scientific critics were complaining about. As Beth said here on Ars, that was the least terrible part.

I’ll add my voice to the recurrent theme here that it is about time that corporate purveyors of fraudulent products have their feet held to fire to face the same accountability the rest of us would face as individuals.

These cash settlements are effectively slaps on the wrist. Suppose some corporation were to sell a vaginal egg for $50 and a court rules that said corporation has to refund half the money. That vaginal egg probably cost less than $5 to manufacture and sell. The corporation also gets a lot of free press coverage, keeps a lot of profit and can play the victim of unfair and unjust treatment by the, “deep state,” or whatever.

Unfortunately there will probably be no end to the scamming soon because people are willing to be scammed. Too many people seem to be unable or unwilling to apply even small amounts critical thinking. After all it shouldn’t take too much analytical thinking to realize it doesn’t make a lot of sense that putting a rock in a body cavity somehow mysteriously rebalances body chemistry. Never mind that neither the user nor the rock have any idea in what way the chemistry might be out of balance. (Whatever out of balance means.)

The maker of the hand cleaner says it has been around since 1949. Both companies have products in the personal care market niche. The hand cleaner maker has clearly exercised its trademark for quite some time prior to the movie star apparently hijacking the name. The allegations of fraudulent and ineffective products purveyed by the movie star could certainly pose a risk to tarnishing the hard earned good reputation of the hand cleaner manufacturer.

It probably boils down to who has bigger pockets for hiring lawyers. The hand cleaner people might be smart to just sit it out until interest in new agey stuff ebbs and they can go on selling hand cleaner as always.

"Goop has just popped up with a new TV series, in which Gwyneth Paltrow and her team test vampire facials and back a body worker, who claims to cure both acute psychological trauma and side-effects by simply moving his hands two inches above a customer's body," the NHS boss said.

"While fake news used to travel by word of mouth, and later the Caxton press, we all know that lies and misinformation can now be round the world at the touch of a button - before the truth has reached for its socks, never mind got its boots on," said Mr Stevens.

"Myths and misinformation have been put on steroids by the availability of misleading claims online.

"While the term 'fake news' makes most people think about politics, people's natural concern for their health, and particularly about that of their loved ones, makes this particularly fertile ground for quacks, charlatans and cranks," he added.

Quote:

The legal action was brought by California's consumer protection office.

Goop said it had not received any complaints from consumers about the product's description.

“It is outrageous that Goop continues to exploit health issues in order to make money.”

Well, that pretty much covers EVERY SINGLE DRUG AD you see on TV all day long.

If you watch any daytime TV, you come away convinced that every single American is suffering from at least 20 serious diseases simultaneously. On some daytime shows (especially on the cable channels) you will see the same drug ad run up 100 times a day.It's a multi-billion $ industry and keeps most of the smaller cable channels in business.

Goop is just a BIT more outrageous than some of these Holistic/Herbal/All-Natural supplement ads, not to mention the slickly produced major pharma ads (just read carefully the side-effects sometimes. No thanks, I'll stick with the disease thank you very much.)

That NYT op/ed scares me a hell of a lot more than Paltrow. She may well be a hippy dippy new age believer who honestly thinks science is a conspiracy. The authors of the NYT piece...they know better. They carefully use a mix of out of context truths with half truths, with bold opinions to make what appears, at first glance to an open minded person a cogent argument. And frankly, if you didn't have reason to know better, you could do a little research and find out that at one level they are right, without coming to realize how wrong they are.

It is true, that in some cancer treatment plans, integrated or complementary therapy is part of the treatment plans, including Reiki, Yoga, etc. What they don't tell you is that it's due to the placebo effect. They are doing nasty things to try and kill your cancer, like poisoning and irradiating you, (really cancer treatment is beating you half to death in hopes of beating the cancer all the way). That's the actual cancer treatment part. They use the other stuff as a way of making you feel better emotionally about it. If Reiki makes you feel a little less beat up after Chemo, GREAT! Medically it's irrelevant that the feeling better has no physical cause.

No oncologist will ever tell you Reiki, Yoga, Meditation, Vagina Candles, etc. will cause tumors to shrink. It's not part of actual treatment for cancer. You can cure cancer by doing the Oncology and not the spirituality, but not vice versa.

So they start from a high level of dishonesty, and then throw in the conversation stopper words (patriarchy, sexism, etc.), which makes it seem like we need to privilege their harmful bullshit because its women's harmful bullshit.

It's enough to make me scream.

The rabid paywalling the NYTimes has been doing was the penultimate straw. Publishing that op ed is the final one. So sad when an institution like that goes down the drain. Meanwhile, thankfully, WaPo (I'm a subscriber) and... Buzzfeed (?!??) are doing legit journalism.

not to mention the slickly produced major pharma ads (just read carefully the side-effects sometimes. No thanks, I'll stick with the disease thank you very much.)

Not all side effects warrant paying attention to. If the side effect is prefaced with "in rare occurrences," it likely was a one or two off effect observed in a trial of thousands that couldn't be definitively proven to be some other cause. Example: did drug A cause a polip to grow around your anus that burst and caused bloody feces? Probably not, but it happened once with someone who has no previous history, so it can't be ruled out. Congrats, anal bleeding is a rare occurrence side effect.

That said, you also aren't wrong. There's usually a laundry list of side effects with a reasonable chance to affect you for what amounts to skin irritation and blotchiness. If I had psoriasis, I'd live with it over the side effects of whatever new drug comes up and its side effects.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is not a pain killer (it is an analgesic - it only relieves pain associated with fever, not any any other type of pain), nor does it have any effect on arthritis (it is not anti-inflammatory like aspirin), yet it is advertised as doing those things all the time.

To be accurate that article was not by a NY Times Author but a "Letter to the Editor" by Jennifer Block. An for those who didn't have time to read the article a quick summary is essentially, "People hate Gweneth because she is a woman, not because of bad science." Is basically the summary of her submission.

You aren't supposed to publish every crank letter you ever get. You also aren't supposed to publish them just as "Opinion" without a clear marking "Letters to the Editor," and you definitely aren't supposed to give a soapbox to dangerous cranks without so much as a disclaimer that the paper vigorously disagrees with the dangerous bullshit the crank is spouting.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is not a pain killer (it is an analgesic - it only relieves pain associated with fever, not any any other type of pain), nor does it have any effect on arthritis (it is not anti-inflammatory like aspirin), yet it is advertised as doing those things all the time.

Huh? An analgesic is a painkiller. Acetaminophen is an NSAID. The AI in NSAID is anti-inflammatory, although there are better options for inflammation available.

Edit: The stricken portion is due to disagreement about whether acetaminophen is always considered an NSAID. Doing more digging, it seems to be a controversial classification, due to it being much less effective for inflammation than other options.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is not a pain killer (it is an analgesic - it only relieves pain associated with fever, not any any other type of pain), nor does it have any effect on arthritis (it is not anti-inflammatory like aspirin), yet it is advertised as doing those things all the time.

So when I have a really bad headache but no fever, and I take Tylenol, am I imagining the headache going away? Or is it just a coincidence that the two things happen one after the other, every time?

“Goop seems to have forgotten that it is legally bound by a court order to refrain from engaging in deceptive marketing or, worse, is knowingly violating the order ... It is outrageous that Goop continues to exploit health issues in order to make money.”

Con man don't stop until you force them to. Apparently a court order is insufficient. A much harsher remedy is called for.

What is always annoying about these settlements is the the company almost always admits no wrongdoing but settles for a payout. Pretty good scam, if you can do it.

Imaging if Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer admitted no wrongdoing, but still were sentenced.

This sort of thing allows corporations to delude consumers and themselves that they did nothing wrong, and it was just pesky regulators and conned consumers doing a shakedown on the poor, innocent corporation.

Technically, they could have. It's called pleading "no contest". The main difference is that, I believe, a criminal guilty plea can be referenced in a civil proceeding, and a "no contest" plea cannot be.

A court must find guilt before it may sentence. Regardless of if you pleaded guilty, no contest, or were found guilty after a trial, that finding may be used in a civil trial.

However, as OJ discovered, even if you are found not guilty, you may still be found liable in a civil trial.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is not a pain killer (it is an analgesic - it only relieves pain associated with fever, not any any other type of pain), nor does it have any effect on arthritis (it is not anti-inflammatory like aspirin), yet it is advertised as doing those things all the time.

An analgesic is any drug that gives relief from pain. That is different from an anesthetic which reduces or removes any feeling of pain.

Acetaminophen, ibuprofen, aspirin, and other analgesics are not 100% effective. By them self, they are seldom effective in 50% of people. The most effective OTC pain relied comes from a combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen.